About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
control act agreement to raise taxes. the president did raise taxes $600 billion, there was never an agreement to raise taxes. so that's where we've got a loggerhead. this is the problem. at the end of debate i remember when the president guaranteed the american people sequester wouldn't happen. but it is happening. it's happening right now in the law. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates cuts on the defense department, besides other cuts to replace them when. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester are apparently indicates he does, but he wants to do it raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under our current day, we increase spending every year. the difficulty is that pointed out before our committee so many times is half the reductions in spending and sequester file on the defense department come which only make ucmj six of the spending in our government. that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the disabilities, i suggest you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, commander-in-chief. i am very worried beca
program activities, which covers the entire extent. every one of those had to be equally taxed. the congress imposed a more onerous, morerestrictiverra money from ppa to ppa.my ato m i have these small but not a lot oney anof them are only people. for whatever reason, they decided there needed to be more control over the national intelligence program. the effect of the fy 13 appropriations i did help as assume that it allowed us to move some money around city could move the money into the pot sorority committed to by virtue the fact we are fragments months of the fiscal year before regarded though. it would've been a disaster without it. the downside to allow start, which was good, but for most accounts with three specific exceptions, which i can't discuss here, with less money at the end of the day with the appropriations act and the impact of sequestration was doubled because we had to take and 79, said the rail cut fares about her 10%. >> the realistic impact is helpful. it provided a context to things they might be allowed to do. we have a macro issue of the sequestration,
that covers the entire extent. every one of those had to be eat late taxed. the congress imposed a more onerous, more restrict it from a comma rules that on my ability to move money from ppa to ppa. i have small pdas with not a lot of money but for whatever reason decided there needed to be more over the national intelligence program. the effect of the fy 13 of her rations that did help us in that it allowed us to move money around civic and that the money into the path we are committed to by virtue of the fact were five men in before we got a bill. sowo ba dister t it. a cab structure, did allow new start,t also frommocountschss here was what many at the endf the day and of course the of sequestration was doubled because we had to take it in seven months. iraq i was. ealistic impact. >> that is helpful because it provides more of a context of things we might be able to do. again, we have a macro issue of sequestration can watch everyone recognizes it's in packs on your programs. but i stand legislative authorization not on this committee that the intelligence that could have the skinny
of it comes from the drug trade. some probably 35 or 40%. some money comes from illicit taxes from afghan people and some money comes from external support from outside the region. >> when you look at the places that they go in pakistan, the frontier areas, double pakistan, -- do you believe pakistan, number one, has control over those areas and number two, can control over those areas? >> senator, pakistan does not have control over those areas right now. they have had over 15,000 killed and wounded in operations in that area over the past decade. they've had hundreds killed and wounded in the past several weeks as they've tried to gain control in the khyber area. i think that's a clear indication they cannot control the border area and the taliban that are operating freely inside of that border area. >> what do you see as a rule for the taliban, if any, in the future afghan government as we transition out, as discussions are taking place. how do you envision that future afghan government? obviously there are elections coming up but how are we looking at the transition for the afghan gov
of it comes from the drug trailed. some probably 35 or 40%. some money comes from illicit taxes from afghan people and some money comes from external support from outside the region. >> when you look at the places that they go in pakistan, the frontier areas, double pakistan, number one, has control over those areas and number two, can control over those areas? >> senator, pakistan does not have control over those areas right now. they have had over 15,000 killed and wounded in operations in that area over the past decade. they've had hundreds killed and wounded in the past kefrl weeks that is -- as they've tried to gain control in the khyber area. i think that's a clear indication they cannot control the border area and the taliban that are operating freely inside of that border area. >> what do you see as a rule for the taliban, if any, in the future afghan government as we transition out, as discussions are taking place. how do you envision that future afghan government? obviously there are elections coming up but how are we looking at the transition for the afghan government? >> the sta
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5